Category: Religion

Cardinal Connell explained the concept of mental reservation to the Murphy Child Abuse Inquiry as follows.

Well, the general teaching about mental reservation is that you are not permitted to tell a lie.

On the other hand, you may be put in a position where you have to answer, and there may be circumstances in which you can use an ambiguous expression realising that the person who you are talking to will accept an untrue version of whatever it may be – permitting that to happen, not willing that it happened, that would be lying.

It really is a matter of trying to deal with extraordinarily difficult matters that may arise in social relations where people may ask questions that you simply cannot answer. Everybody knows that this kind of thing is liable to happen.

So, mental reservation is, in a sense, a way of answering without lying.

I’m going to treat this concept with the absolute contempt it deserves. At no point am I going to give it even a smidgen of credibility because to do so would damage my own credibility and insult my intelligence not to mention the intelligence of readers.

Unfortunately, and incredibly, this bizarre and corrupt Catholic teaching has been treated as a matter worthy of discussion by much of the Irish media over the past week or so.

I want to be absolutely clear here – anybody, with even the smallest self respect for themselves or their profession, should have reacted to this corrupt concept with total and absolute derision.

People like Cardinal Connell and Archbishop Martin, both of whom apparently fully accept the corrupt concept as perfectly reasonable and normal, should have been publicly derided when they spoke in defence of this corrupt concept.

I’ve already said that Archbishop Martin is a dishonest, sly defender of an obnoxious religion and a recent interview on the scandal confirms my view (This Week).

This man’s aim is the very same as that of the bishops who decided that the good name of their (corrupt) church was more important than saving children from rape.

Right throughout the interview he dissembles and evades,refusing to make any direct criticism of his church or any of those responsible for putting children in danger.

Asked what should happen to those named in the report Martin replied that they should be given the chance to give their side of the story in the court of public opinion.

The interview is worth quoting at length to demonstrate how far this so called priest is prepared to go to defend his corrupt church.

Do you think that’s satisfactory?

Public opinion can be sharper than the sword of the law.

How is that to be measured?

It will be measured by the way public opinion acts. Public opinion can act in a way that is lynch law or it can act in a way that the citizens of the country are able to express their…

Has the church no mechanism to act?

I don’t have that authority, I think in the past the resignations have come from those who, they resigned.

On mental reservation:

Mental reservation is where you make a declaration and it’s not untrue but you don’t necessarily tell the entire truth. I’m told that this is precisely the mechanism that was used to take the oath of allegiance at the beginning of this state.

On O’Connell’s evidence regarding mental reservation:

He said he cooperated but what he didn’t say was he had cooperated fully.

I saw that, that isn’t mental reservation.

What is it?

That’s being scarce with the truth.

A lie?

A lie, I won’t go into the intention of somebody, it could be a comment that was made afterwards. It was a comment of somebody else on the action of…

Isn’t the idea of mental reservation to give somebody the opportunity to take things up the wrong way?

It is but a sharp investigator should be able to notice those things. (So the victims who approached the liar Connell for help and comfort didn’t have much hope).

Have you used it?

Have you anything to declare? We all use mental reservations.

Was Desmond Connell right to use it in the context in which he used it?

The question there about cooperating fully, I think it was somebody else actually who said that.

(He doesn’t have the courage to simple say that Connell is a liar).

There was a specific example where he used the were and are, it was a difference of tense to avoid telling the full truth. Was it right to use it in that context?

If there was a deliberate attempt to hide the truth it was not right but I can’t judge exactly what was going on in a man’s mind at that stage, it would be unfair to do that.

This is the man who is almost universally praised for his response to the child abuse holocaust. He simply doesn’t have it in him to make any serious criticism of his church or any of the ruthless perverted criminals who populate its ranks.

If Martin was the man he likes to portray himself as he would, after learning the full horror of what had happened, have ripped off his collar and threw it in the gutter.

I agree completely with Richard Dawkins when he says that religious indoctrination amounts to child abuse.

In my opinion Cardinal Connell’s response to the wholesale rape of children stems largely from the psychological damage inflicted on him by religious indoctrination.

Archbishop Martin’s defence of his corrupt church is also an indication of psychological damage caused by religious indoctrination when he was a child.

The only difference between these two men and the terrorists who flew planes into the twin towers is one of degree; both actions resulted in massive suffering to innocent human beings.

It is an absolute certainty that that suffering will continue until such time as the Catholic Church is destroyed.

The horror visited upon children by the Catholic Church is now been completely ignored by those with the power to bring justice to the victims. Instead, all discussion is focused on the relatively minor matter of resignations.

Dave O’Connell, editor of the Connacht Tribune, thinks that calls for resignations are a bit extreme.

We need to see the Garda inquiry reach whatever findings it can do on this and then whatever criminal investigation, criminal action or whatever resignations need to take place should take place at that point.

Enda Kenny’s call at this time is a little bit premature. I don’t claim to have read the report in graphic detail. I wouldn’t like to be seen to be defending or in any way condoning but I don’t think he has emerged from this in a position whereby a resignation is the best way forward for him (The bishop of Galway).

I have no axe to grind for him I don’t know him at all but I think that we have to have some measured reaction to this.

By all means when the Garda inquiry is completed if people are found to have been in any way complicit on this, yes they must resign and face whatever legal and court action but I think at this point in time there’s nothing to be served particularly from a resignation of the bishop of Galway.

O’Connell hasn’t read the graphic details of the report, he thinks we should have a measured reaction to the wholesale rape of children and he thinks that no purpose is served by resignations.

Here’s a mad guess: No child of Dave O’Connell’s has ever been raped by a priest, no bishop has ever provided protection for a priest that raped a child of Dave O’Connell’s.

A nun from the institution delivered the complainant to him for the purposes of permitting the abuse.

The complainant alleged that the nun was complicit in the abuse on these occasions and that the nun herself participated in the abuse and watched it taking place.

She alleged that she was gang-raped by three or four men in that house and that Fr Cassius was one of the participants in the rape.

It’s critical, I believe, when considering the Murphy Report to keep two things in mind at all times.

Firstly, the absolute horror, helplessness and fear experienced by the children as they were abused and secondly that the official reaction to the report is exactly as can be expected from the ruling regime of a corrupt state.

A standard part of that reaction involves endless talk and analysis coupled with endless inquiries but never, ever, any direct action.

Here’s Garda Commissioner, Fachtna Murphy, commentating on the recently announced inquiry by the assistant Garda commissioner (Six One News, 4th report, 2nd item).

He will examine handling of the complaints and the handling of the investigation and not just by the Gardai alone but by church and state authorities and he will report to me with his recommendations.

So when I get that report from the assistant commissioner I will consult with the Director of Public Prosecutions to see if criminal liability arises.

So, after three years of detailed and exhaustive investigation by Judge Yvonne Murphy culminating in overwhelming evidence of serious crimes the state launches an inquiry into the findings of that inquiry.

The Garda commissioner then tells us that when that inquiry is complete, let’s be generous and give it another three years, he will consult (conduct an inquiry) with the DPP to see if criminal liability arises.

The DPP will then consult himself and his advisors (yet another inquiry), over a couple of years, by which time the whole scandal will be forgotten and quietly dropped.

The following extract from the report provides us with a good idea of how this strategy works. The extract concerns a renegade priest who was sent to America after becoming an ‘embarrassment’ (Judge Murphy’s emphasis).

The bishops decided to let him go to the USA. They, in effect, set him loose on the unsuspecting population of Stockton, California.

Monsignor Stenson noted in a contemporaneous memo that the garda inspector, on being informed that Mr ? was in the USA, commented that this made his task much easier in that “they will hardly send me to America for him”.

That same afternoon, the inspector called to Archbishop‟s House and, according to Monsignor Stenson‟s contemporaneous notes, 338,
informed Monsignor Stenson:

“The Guards are aware that should the matter surface in the Sunday World in two or three years time it is important for them to have covered their tracks. Hence the present enquiry”.

Less than 24 hours after the Ryan Report into child abuse by the Catholic Church was published the country went into denial.

Instead of discussing the holocaust of horrors that took place within Catholic concentration camps the ruling elite and much of the media focused entirely on the question of how much extra money should be paid to the victims.

The same strategy is being followed with the publication of the Murphy Report.

Instead of immediately arresting the bishops involved including Cardinal Connell and putting them on trial the ruling elite and most of the media is focused entirely on the question of whether those involved should resign.

The dishonest and manipulative Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, said it’s up to the bishops themselves. The so called leader of our nation Brian Cowen says it’s up to the church, nothing to do with him and bishop Murray, one of those named, says it’s up to the people and priests of his parish.

The message is clear –the Catholic Church must be protected no matter how heinous the crime.

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin is a dishonest, slyly manipulative defender of the obnoxious and evil organisation of which he is an enthusiastic member – the Catholic Church.

Martin and his church, with the full cooperation of the State, have been planning their strategy since last January to minimise the impact of this report and they have been largely successful in their aim.

Archbishop Martin is no different from his predecessors in that his principal concern is for the good of the Catholic Church rather than justice for the abused children.

Apologies slip easily off his well trained tongue but when hard questions are put to him he simply comments on the question or talks about something else. He launched his defence of the Catholic Church with these words:

As Archbishop of Dublin and as Diarmuid Martin a person I offer to each and every survivor my apology, my sorrow blah blah blah…

This was the only occasion when the Archbishop spoke of himself as a person rather than as a defender of the evil organisation that he represents.

For example when he was asked whether those responsible for the cover up should resign he couldn’t find it within himself to speak as an ordinary decent human. Instead he weakly mouthed that it was up to the bishops themselves.

A genuinely sympathetic human would instinctively know, and say, that those responsible for the horrific abuse of children should resign forthwith.

When asked on Prime Time how those who knew failed to act for so long he said:

Those who took those decisions knew what were crimes in Canon law and civil law and knew what was immoral and for some reason or other misread reality.

For some reason or other misread reality? Are these the words of a normal human being who fully understands the import of what has occurred – I don’t think so?

Abuse surviver Marie Collins, who rightly claims that the leadership of the Catholic Church is still the same, that nothing has changed, exposed Archbishop Martin’s dishonesty on Six One News (1st report 7th item).

The archbishop was asked if this could happen again and replied:

New norms are in place but they require that people really commit themselves. We have the possibility of the National Office and the HSE verifying any decisions I make. I’m pleased to have that double verification in place when I’m implementing the policies.

Marie Collins shot that down immediately:

The Vatican has not given recognition to the norms now in place which means they are not enforceable. This means there’s no sanction that can be taken against a bishop who decides not to follow the current norms.

Martin continued:

Anything I do can be examined by the national board and HSE and they can make matters public if I’m not carrying things out.

Again, Marie Collins exposed the lie.

The national board is not allowed to name a bishop or his diocese that are non compliant with the rules.

Archbishop Martin did not refute this claim but, characteristically, went on to talk about another matter.

This exchange tells us that the Catholic Church is still the same, still in denial, still refusing to put proper safeguards in place to protect children, still putting the interests of the church above everything.

It also tells us the State has learned nothing, that it has no problem in continuing to place the safety of children in the hands of a warped institution peopled by warped minds